Presentation and Inquiry with Hillary Rodrigues, May 7, 2026
We met at the Gorge Park Pavilion, where Hilary Rodrigues gave an introductory talk on Advaita Vedanta that gradually unfolded into a shared discussion. The exploration focused on the similarities and differences between the teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti and the non-dual traditions of Advaita, particularly the idea that beneath the apparent diversity of life there is “one underlying essence.”
Hilary shared several stories from the Upanishads, ancient Indian texts that form the basis of Vedanta philosophy. Through various metaphors, the ancient teachings point toward one indivisible reality – Brahman. One story described a father guiding his son toward understanding this through simple examples drawn from ordinary life. Salt dissolved in water could no longer be seen, yet its presence remained everywhere in the water. In the same way, the father suggests that the underlying essence of life may not be visible to the senses, yet it permeates everything. Hilary also spoke about the influence of the philosopher Shankara, whose Advaita interpretations emphasized that the apparent multiplicity of the world is ultimately an expression of one reality. The famous Advaita image of mistaking a rope for a snake in dim light was also explored as a way of understanding how thought and conditioning shape perception. What appears frightening or separate may in fact be projection, created by memory, fear, and conditioning.
While Advaita often points directly toward an ultimate oneness or absolute reality, Krishnamurti seemed more concerned with observing “what is” – the actual movement of conditioning as it arises in daily life. It was suggested that beginning with ideas about enlightenment or “the absolute” can easily become another form of spiritual ambition.
One participant reflected that hearing about enlightenment or permanent peace can create inner conflict, because the mind immediately wants to attain it. In contrast, Krishnamurti’s notion of “choiceless awareness” felt more accessible.
The theme of negation arose through the Advaita “neti, neti” – “not this, not this.” Anything you can perceive or think is not the ultimate Self . So you negate all objects of identification until only pure awareness remains. Even ideas such as “oneness” or “emptiness” may become obstacles if held psychologically.
At one point the discussion moved into the distinction between phenomenon and noumenon – between what can be perceived through the senses and something possibly beyond perception itself. The question arose whether Krishnamurti’s phrase “what is” refers only to observable experience, or whether it also points to something beyond thought and sensation. Hillary clarified that for most of us “what-is” is the movement of our conditioned consciousness.
Related to this was Krishnamurti’s statement that “the observer is the observed.” Hillary explained that the separation between “observer” and “observed” is not fixed or real in itself, but created through thought. Whenever the mind identifies something – for example, “I see a tree” – it automatically creates two things at once: a “tree” as something separate, and a “me” who is seeing it. In this movement of naming and conceptualizing, both the observer and the observed arise together as part of the same process. So “the observer is the observed” means that what we call the observer is not independent – it is shaped and constructed in relation to what is being perceived. The sense of a separate “me” exists only through this ongoing act of division created by thought.
Toward the end, participants reflected on moments of deep absorption playing music, creating art, or being fully attentive, where the sense of a separate self temporarily fades. In such moments, as one participant described, “there is simply the movement itself,” without division between observer and observed.
- Anastasia Shtamina
